Fundies Will Be Shitting Bricks

[tavarish]

over this one!

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...ecule.html

Meanwhile, back on Earth at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, have created synthetic molecules that copy genetic material. The enzyme, tC19Z, that has been synthesised could be an artificial version of one of the first enzymes that ever existed on our planet three billion years ago -- and a clue to how life itself got started. Their goal is to create fully self-replicating RNA molecules in the lab.

Atheistic evolutionary fundies? Into ID? Whatever next?

LOL... With regards to "how life itself got started" and "three billion years".....
The scientific method has four "steps" - Observe, hypothesise, test and demonstrate - and since there was no-one there to comply with the first "step". It's all just GUESSING... or should that be wishful thinking... or, perhaps, Pi**ING IN THE WIND.

The latter definitely.
You people will believe any old bollox.


Oh, by the way........ Hi All

FH

Let's all just calm the fuck down, shall we?

1. You've been provided with the actual layout of the scientific method. You're missing a few steps.

2. Are you really making the argument that if no human was there to record it, then we have no observation? I'm beginning to think you don't know what an observation is. Here, let me spoonfeed it to you since you're busy throwing intellectual tripe at everyone else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation...in_science

Observation is either an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during this activity. An observation can also be the way you look at things or when you look at something.

Do you understand that ANY data collected is an observation in science?

3. I will accept anything that is readily demonstrable and verifiable in reality. If RNA can be replicated in a lab using conditions that were similar to a forming Earth, and those results are measurable, consistent, and pass the rigors of peer review, then that provides us the best explanation of how life formed on Earth. Saying an unverifiable deity did it doesn't expand our knowledge of anything, because you have to first provide evidence of that deity's existence.

Your text speaks volumes about how ignorant you are in regards to scientific discovery. To equate demonstrable evidence to pissing in the wind is something that could only come from someone that is intellectually dishonest at worst and severely misguided at best.

Go learn you a book, lightweight.